coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant, M.V., is an infant of Serbian nationality who was born in 2002 and currently lives in Belgrade.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted on behalf of the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 16 April 2003 the applicant’s representative, S.R., filed a civil claim with the Second Municipal Court (Drugi opštinski sud) in Belgrade, seeking child maintenance from N.V., the applicant’s biological father.
8.  On 2 February 2004 the Second Municipal Court issued an interim maintenance order, which had been requested by the applicant on 19 January 2004.
9.  On 24 November 2004 the District Court quashed the interim order.
10.  By 11 May 2005 a total of five hearings were scheduled. Only one, however, was held while the remaining four were adjourned due to the presiding judge’s “other commitments” (zbog sprečenosti).
11.  Between 17 June 2005 and 20 October 2006, the Second Municipal Court held or adjourned another thirteen hearings. At the hearing of 20 February 2006, it heard the applicant and the respondent for the first time since the beginning of the proceedings.
12.  On 12 December 2006 the Second Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant and issued an interim maintenance order, pending the conclusion of the civil proceedings.
13.  On 28 February 2007 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade quashed this judgment, as well as the interim order, and remitted the case for a retrial. In so doing it stated that the maintenance awarded needed to be reconsidered and, further, that N.V.’s access to the applicant also had to be regulated.
14.  Between 5 July 2007 and 25 February 2008, three hearings were held, whilst two were adjourned because of a strike and the replacement of certain members of the court’s panel.
15.  On 25 February 2008 the Second Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant, issued an interim maintenance order pending the conclusion of the civil proceedings, and ordered N.V. to cover the legal costs.
16.  On 31 March 2008 N.V. filed an appeal against this decision.
17.  On 30 May 2008 the District Court reduced the maintenance awarded, rejected the request for an interim maintenance order, and ruled that each party was to pay its own costs and expenses.
18.  This judgment was served on the applicant on 24 July 2008.
19.  On 5 August 2008 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law.
20.  On 11 August 2008 the applicant also filed a request for the re-opening of the proceedings.
21.  According to the information in the case file provided by the parties to date, it would appear that the proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Court.
22.  Throughout the proceedings complaints were made on behalf of the applicant about the delay to various State bodies, but to no avail.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in İzmir.
5.  In 1998 the applicant and his wife bought a flat. In 1999 the applicant’s wife initiated divorce proceedings against the applicant and in 2000 the divorce was pronounced.
6.  In the meantime, on 24 November 1999, the applicant brought an action before the İzmir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, asking for compensation in an amount equal to half the value of the flat he and his former wife had bought in 1998. On 17 September 2003 the court dismissed the case as it found that it did not have jurisdiction ratione materiae, and sent the file to the İzmir Family Court. However, on 21 October 2004 the İzmir Family Court dismissed the case as it also found that it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae, and sent the file back to the İzmir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.
7.  Finally, on 16 June 2005, having regard to the statements of both parties’ witnesses and an expert report to assess the contribution made by the parties to the flat, and in view of the facts of the previous divorce action, the İzmir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction dismissed the case. It held that the applicant and his former wife had been living in separate houses when the flat in question was bought. Moreover, the applicant was unemployed and unable to provide even a basic level of financial support for his wife. It was concluded that, given his financial situation, the applicant could not have contributed enough to the purchase of the flat in question to be entitled to claim a share in it. The court further noted that, at the time of purchase, the legal matrimonial regime was the system of separation of property and the title deed of the flat was registered in the wife’s name.
8.  On 29 December 2005 and 14 April 2006 respectively, the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal and rectification requests.
7.  The applicants, who are siblings, were born in 1959, 1942, 1947 and 1944 respectively. The first applicant (who is a Cypriot and British citizen) lives in London; the second, third and fourth applicants all reside in Larnaca. The second applicant is a Cypriot citizen, while the third and fourth applicants are British citizens.
8.  On 13 August 1974, as the Turkish troops were advancing, the applicants' father left the village of Ayios Avrosios in the District of Kyrenia, where he owned the following immovable properties:
(a) plot of land with trees in Kapsala (plot no. 12/7/5/1, sheet/plan 13/15, registration no. 14426, area: hectares (h.) 3, decares (d.) 9, square metres (m²) 818);
(b) plot of land with trees in Glifhonera (plot no. 12/7/3, sheet/plan 13/15, registration no. 13911, area: h. 5, d. 6, m² 105);
(c) plot of land with trees in Glifhonera (plot no. 12/7/4, sheet/plan 13/15, registration no. 13912, area: h. 5, d. 5, m² 27);
(d) plot of land with trees in Apati (plot nos. 13/4 and 15/3, sheet/plan 13/31, registration no. 10106, area: d. 2, m² 342);
(e) plot of land with trees in Spati (plot no. 250/3, sheet/plan 13/23, registration no. 7182, area: d. 3, m² 345);
(f) plot of land with trees in Apati (plot no. 11/6, sheet/plan 13/31, registration no. 10097, area: m² 437);
(g) plot of land with trees in Apati (plot no. 11, sheet/plan 13/31, registration no. 10087, area: d. 4, m² 14);
(h) plot of land in Trachonas (plot no. 579, sheet/plan 13/22, registration no. 5927; area: d. 1, m² 673).
9.  In support to their claim that their father was the owner of the above-mentioned plots of land, the applicants submitted copies of the title deeds and of the relevant certificates of ownership.
10.  On 17 August 1974 the applicants' father tried to visit his property but was arrested by Turkish soldiers. He was released on the same day, since he was a British citizen.
11.  On 19 May 1991 the applicants' father died. According to his will, dated 18 May 1988, the plot described under paragraph 8 (a) above was to be inherited by the first applicant and the other plots were to be inherited by the four applicants in equal shares. On 30 July 1991, Mr T. Michaelides was appointed as executor of the will of the applicants' father. The applicants registered their titles with the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus on 10 July 1995. The first applicant tried, via the British consular authorities, to visit the properties at issue, but did not obtain permission.
12.  In a letter of 2 September 2003, the applicants informed the Court that Turkey was planning to construct a highway at the edge of their properties and that an area of m² 6,000 had been taken for this purpose. The applicants had not been consulted on the matter and no compensation had been offered to them.
7.  The applicants, who are brother and sister, were born in 1959 and 1942 respectively. The first applicant (who is a Cypriot and British citizen) lives in London, while the second applicant (a Cypriot citizen) resides in Larnaca.
8.  The applicants alleged that until August 1974 they were living in a house owned by their father in Ayios Amvrosios, in the District of Kyrenia (northern part of Cyprus). This house was built on plot no. 233/9 of sheet/plan 13/23. The second applicant, who had been recently married, was living with her husband and daughter in the east wing of the house, a separate residence, while the first applicant was living with his mother and father in the west wing. The plot on which the two semi-detached residences had been built covered an area of 517 square metres (m²); each residence was of 290 m². They both had a garage and two floors.
9.  The applicants left their house on 13 August 1974, as the Turkish troops were advancing. On 17 August 1974 their father tried to visit his property but was arrested by Turkish soldiers. He was released on the same day, since he was a British citizen.
10.  On 19 May 1991 the applicants' father died. According to his will, dated 18 May 1988, the house and land in question was to be equally shared by the two applicants. On 30 July 1991, Mr T. Michaelides was appointed as executor of his will. On 10 July 1995 the applicants registered, in equal shares, their titles with the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus. The first applicant got the west residence, while the second applicant got the east one. The first applicant tried, via the British consular authorities, to visit his property, but did not obtain permission.
11.  The applicants had been informed that their house had been occupied by high-ranked Turkish military officers.
7.  The applicant company had its headquarters in Tymbou (northern Cyprus). It was owned by Mrs Elena Proestou, a Greek citizen, and Mr Georghios Christoforides, a Greek-Cypriot. Its directors were Mrs Elena Proestou, Mr Georghios Christoforides and Mr Vassos Proestos, a Greek-Cypriot.
8.  The applicant company alleged that it was the owner of the following four plots of land at Tymbou:
- plot no. 166, sheet plan XXXI/4, registration no. A196;
- plot no. 168, sheet plan XXXI/4, registration no. A197;
- plot no. 170, sheet plan XXXI/4, registration no. A200;
- plot no. 230, sheet plan XXXI/20.W.1, registration no. B229.
9.  A quarry was situated on the applicant's land. Before 1974, it had obtained a permit to operate the quarry and use sand from the nearby river to wash sandstone. The applicant was also the owner of several machines and equipment used at the quarry.
10.  In August 1974, as the Turkish army was advancing, the shareholders and directors of the applicant company abandoned the quarry, machines and equipment and fled to the area controlled by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. Since then they had been unable to return to and to enjoy their properties.
11.  In its “additional evidence and written observations” of 23 November 2000, the applicant company produced a copy of the title deeds concerning the plots of land described in paragraph 8 above.
5.  On 16 May 1996 the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody by officers of the İstanbul security police in connection with an investigation into an illegal organisation. On 30 May 1996 the applicants were brought before the İstanbul public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively, who remanded the applicants in custody.
6.  By an indictment dated 27 June 1996, the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants and a number of others, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of taking part in its activities.
7.  On 4 June 2003 the İstanbul State Security Court sentenced the applicants to life imprisonment, pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code. On 20 January 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and remitted the case. State Security Courts were abolished by constitutional amendments introduced on 7 May 2004. Subsequently, the applicants’ case was resumed before the 12th Assize Court of İstanbul.
8.  Referring to recent amendments in domestic law, on 27 December 2004 the applicants requested to be released pending trial. Relying on the accusations against the applicants, the length of their detention and the content of the case file, the 12th Assize Court of İstanbul refused the applicants’ request on 29 December 2004. The applicants appealed. On 18 January 2005 the 13th Assize Court of İstanbul dismissed their appeal without further reasoning.
9.  On 1 February 2006 the applicants were released pending trial.
10.  On 30 April 2008 the 12th Assize Court of İstanbul sentenced the applicants as charged. According to the information in the case file, as submitted by the parties, the proceedings are pending before the Court of Cassation.
2.  On 3 December 1997 the applicant company instituted compensation proceedings before the Istanbul 8th Commercial Court against a private bank (“the bank”) and claimed that it had suffered financial loss as the bank had applied high interest rates. Subsequently the bank filed a counterclaim and the two proceedings were joined on 22 September 1998.
3.  On 20 January 2004 the court awarded the applicant company compensation. Both parties appealed. On 18 April 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on procedural grounds.
4.  On 17 November 2005 the Istanbul 8th Commercial Court made the procedural corrections and ordered the bank to pay compensation to the applicant company. Both parties appealed. On 13 March 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant company’s appeal for having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit. However, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in respect of the bank, both on the procedure and the merits. On 30 June 2006 the applicant company requested rectification of the judgment. On 19 June 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant company’s request.
5.  On 21 June 2007 the İstanbul 8th Commercial Court issued a decision of non-jurisdiction. On 25 January 2008 the applicant company appealed.
6.  According to the information in the case file submitted by the parties to date, the proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts.
3.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Istanbul. On 5 March 2003 he was expelled from a military academy as he was found unsuitable to be a student there following a secret security investigation conducted on him and his family. The applicant was not notified of the specific reasons for his expulsion.
4.  Subsequently, the applicant asked the Supreme Military Administrative Court to annul the expulsion decision. During the proceedings, he did not have access to the classified documents and information submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military Administrative Court in support of its decision to expel him from the military academy.
5.  On 25 February 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request. It stated that information and documents the confidentiality of which was required and necessitated for the performance of military service could not be disclosed to the applicant. The court further emphasised that it was not bound by the classification made by the administration and that it made its own assessment as to whether the confidentiality of the documents was justified in each case. The written opinion submitted by the public prosecutor to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the proceedings was not communicated to the applicant.
6.  The applicant subsequently requested the rectification of the Supreme Military Administrative Court’s decision, arguing that his inability to access the results of the security investigation due to their allegedly confidential nature precluded him from duly defending himself.
7.  On 20 May 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s rectification request.
5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Vác.
6.  In January 2002 the Pest Central District Court found the applicant, a recidivist offender, guilty of attempted blackmail and plunder and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court, on 15 May 2003, re-characterised his actions as offences of “taking the law into one’s own hands”, attempted aggravated assault and a violation of personal liberty, but reduced his sentence to five years’ imprisonment.
7.  In February 2003 the applicant was charged with aggravated assault. In the ensuing proceedings the applicant was assisted by court-appointed defence counsel.
8.  After holding three hearings, the Pest Central District Court found the applicant guilty as charged on 26 February 2004. The District Court took account of the protraction of the proceedings as a mitigating factor and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The District Court relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of a forensic medical expert and the testimony of several witnesses as well as the applicant.
9.  The applicant appealed, seeking acquittal on the ground that the judgment was ill-founded. The Budapest Regional Court notified the applicant’s lawyer that it would determine the appeal at deliberations in camera. In reply, the lawyer put forward his arguments in detail and requested the court to hold a public hearing. He asserted that the court should hear further witnesses in order to establish the facts fully.
10.  On 1 February 2005 the Regional Court held deliberations in camera and upheld the applicant’s conviction. The applicant, his lawyer and the prosecution were not present. The Regional Court reviewed the entirety of the proceedings and upheld their lawfulness. Furthermore, it considered that the findings of fact by the first-instance court were not ill-founded within the meaning of section 351(2) of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, and were thus suitable for appellate review without taking further evidence. This consideration enabled the court to hold deliberations in camera, pursuant to section 360(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without the attendance of either the defence or the prosecution.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Poznań.
5.  By an administrative decision of 29 June 1978 of the Head of the Dominowo District (Naczelnik Gminy) the real estate owned by the applicant’s husband was transferred to his son – S.K. Neither the applicant’s husband nor the applicant was informed by the authorities about this decision.
6.  In 1990 the applicant’s husband died in a car accident.
7.  On 11 February 1999 the applicant filed a request with the Commune Office (Urząd Gminy) for retrospective leave to appeal against the decision of 29 June 1978.
8.  On 23 February and 17 March 1999 the applicant was informed by the Mayor of the Dominowo Commune (Wójt Gminy) that her request had been left without consideration.
9.  On 22 March 1999 she complained to the Head of the Commune Council (Przewodniczący Rady Gminy) about the fact that her case had been left without consideration and that no decision had been taken on it. She did not receive any answer.
10.  On 14 January 2001 the applicant repeated her request for retrospective leave to appeal against the decision of 29 June 1978.
11.  On 6 December 2000 the Commune Office (Urząd Gminy) informed the applicant that her request could not be dealt with since the case file had been sent to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Admnistracyjny).
12.  On 3 March 2005 the applicant complained to the Commune Office about the delay. She asked for the proceedings to be accelerated.
13.  On 5 April 2005 she lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Commune with the Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny).
14.  On 9 June 2005 the Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s complaint, since the applicant had failed to lodge it in accordance with the formal requirements set out in Polish law, namely she had failed to lodge a complaint with the administrative authority under Article 37 of the Code of Administrative Procedure.
15.  On 3 February 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Dominowo Commune with the Self‑Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze). The complaint was referred to the Dominowo Commune Council, being the competent administrative authority.
16.  By a resolution of 30 August 2006 her complaint was dismissed as ill-founded.
17.  On 4 January 2007 she lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Dominowo Commune with the Regional Administrative Court. She submitted that she had lodged numerous complaints with different administrative authorities, her case had been pending for 8 years and no decision had been given on it.
18.  On 5 December 2007 the Regional Administrative Court found the complaint well-founded. It held that the proceedings in the applicant’s case had exceeded a reasonable time and ordered the Mayor of the Dominowo Commune to proceed speedily with the case.
19.  On 8 April 2008 the Self-Government Board of Appeal decided to grant the applicant retrospective leave to appeal against the decision of 29 June 1978.
4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Izmir.
5.  While the applicant was in compulsory military service in Kırklareli, on 19 November 2002 he got ten days’ leave and went to Izmir to see his family. He did not return to his barracks afterwards.
6.  On 22 February 2003 at 3 p.m., the applicant was arrested by police officers at the Narlıdere police station during a routine identity check on suspicion of being an army deserter (asker kaçağı). At 4 p.m. he was taken to the Üçkuyular Military Station Command where the officials determined that he had not returned to his army command when his leave had ended. He was questioned, inter alia, about which army command he belonged to, why he had deserted and whether he had committed a crime during this time.
7.  On the same day at 8 p.m., the applicant was taken to Şirinyer Military Station Command where he remained in custody. The next day at 11 a.m., he was transferred to the Military Recruitment Office.
8.  On 7 March 2003 at 1.30 p.m., the applicant was transferred to his army command in Kırklareli. The verbatim record of this transfer noted that the applicant, having committed the offence of army desertion, was requested to be transferred to his army command. It further indicated that the applicant had entered the “security room” on 23 February 2003 and “exited” on 6 March 2003.
9.  On the same day at 2 p.m., the applicant was questioned by two army officials who informed him that he had committed the offence of exceeding his leave.
10.  Between 7 March and 11 March 2003, the applicant was held in custody at his army command.
11.  On 11 March 2003 he was brought before the Çorlu Military Court, which remanded him in custody.
12.  On 12 March 2003 the Çorlu Military Prosecutor filed an indictment charging the applicant with exceeding his leave (“izin tecavüzü”) under Article 66 § 1 of the Military Criminal Code.
13.  On 14 April 2003 the Çorlu Military Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment. In its decision the court noted that the applicant had failed to return to his army command at the end of his leave, that he had been apprehended on 22 February 2003 and that he had been held in custody between 7 and 11 March. It deducted the period spent on the road and in custody between 22 February and 11 March 2003 from his prison sentence.
14.  On 22 April 2003 the judgment of the Çorlu Military Court became final as neither the military prosecutor nor the applicant appealed.